Where, as part of an interstate household goods shipment, a 2009 motorcycle was damaged beyond repair during loading, the Individual Shipper selected full replacement value protection (FVP) and declared a $50,000 shipment value on the bill of lading, a Texas appeals court affirms $29,288.99 representing the replacement cost of a new 2022 motorcycle as the appropriate measure of damages for a comparable “like kind and quality” award.[1] Because the mover was unable to demonstrate that it advised the Individual Shipper of the federally mandated HHG dispute settlement program for loss, damage and overcharges as a means to resolve disputes during the claim settlement process, the award of $65,307.90 in attorney’s fees is affirmed as well.
Background
The bill of lading included the required Surface Transportation Board’s (STB) household goods valuation statement for placing a value on the shipment. It serves to set the household goods motor carrier’s liability and damages for loss or damage to the goods entrusted.
At a bench trial, there was evidence that the Individual Shipper brought the motorcycle to the attention of the mover’s salesperson during the pre-move survey. He was informed that the mover had the capability and experience to move it as part of the shipment. According to the decision, his move did not go as planned. The movers who arrived did not know about his motorcycle and did not have the capacity or equipment to move it. The mover offered to send a new mover out – whom he was assured knew how to move vehicles. The new mover set up ramps on the edge of the moving van for loading the motorcycle. The Individual Shipper was instructed to drive the motorcycle up and into the van because the mover didn’t know how to ride a motorcycle. The Individual Shipper did so after expressing reservations – that it did not “look safe” and that the bike “could flip.”
While not flipping on the Individual Shipper, a ramp “blew out” resulting in the back of the bike “smash[ing]” into the ground. It then fell from the truck “again” and “bounced” after the truck’s driver pushed the bike off.[2]
The motorcycle frame, a “composite” material, wasn’t repairable according to Individual Shipper’s mechanic and people directly involved with the manufacturer and thus replacement was necessary.
Prior to the suit, and after submitting a timely claim for $10,000 (described as a “placeholder), the mover mailed a check for $9,905 and letter offering two options. Option one, keep the motorcycle and return $4,952.50 for the value of the damaged motorcycle, or option two, keep all the money and let the mover take the motorcycle; presumably as salvage. Instead, the Individual Shipper countered by sending a pre-suit demand of $25,268 for the replacement cost and $1,500 in attorney’s fees.
The decision indicated he did not receive a response to his demand prior to suit. While the suit was pending, he purchased a new 2022 Spyder RT Limited motorcycle.[3]
Carmack Amendment Liability Against Household Goods Motor Carriers For Loss Or Damage to Goods[4]
FVP is not expressly defined by the Carmack Amendment. The full value replacement standard of liability under the Carmack Amendment placed on a household goods motor carrier for loss or damage to an interstate household goods shipment depends on the facts.
The mover was required to concede FVP under these circumstances prohibits factoring in depreciation. Instead, it argued “replacement value” under the Carmack Amendment for household goods transportation must mean “something other than new.” The mover maintained that the value of the 2009 motorcycle is the appropriate measure, not a brand new 2022 motorcycle and as such, the evidence was insufficient to support a replacement cost award of $29,228.99.
The Appeals court decides, after reviewing the legislative history of the unique provision of the Carmack Amendment for household goods motor carriers and STB’s Released Rates decisions interpreting “full value protection,” that in this case, an award of damages in an amount representing the cost of a new motorcycle was the correct measure of damages. In other words, under the facts of this case, because the 2009 motorcycle was unrepairable, the carrier was liable to the Individual Shipper for damages in an amount equal to a new 2022 motorcycle, not to exceed the declared value of the shipment.
The decision indicated the motorcycle weighed 650 pounds. While silent as to the shipment weight, the bill of lading and argument in the mover’s appellate brief established it was a 6,000 pound shipment. So by weight, the motorcycle represented less than 11% of the shipment, yet the recovery for the single item under FVP represented more than 58% of the declared value.
Dispute Settlement Program For Household Goods Motor Carriers
Brief History Of The HHG Dispute Resolution Statute Under Federal Transportation Law
The Carmack Amendment does not contain a general attorney’s fee provision, but it does authorize fee awards in limited circumstances to individual shippers of household goods.
First enacted as part of the Household Goods Transportation Act of 1980, Congress added a dispute settlement statute to the Federal transportation law to solve the problem faced by individual shippers of household goods – a less expensive dispute resolution program through arbitration so that customers could recover damages without going to court. To encourage carriers to make the program available, the statute provides that where a carrier fails to make a dispute settlement program available it should be liable for the attorney’s fees if a customer prevails in court.
The statute was later moved to where it is codified as of this writing, 49 U.S.C. 14708, as part of the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995. As part of the recodification, Congress revised the statute to require carriers to offer neutral arbitration as a means of resolving disputes and to give shippers notice of availability of arbitration before such goods are tendered to the carrier for transportation and, if a claim is filed, advised of it again during the settlement process. In 2001, the Sixth Circuit in a case called Trepel v. Roadway Express, Inc., 266 F.3d 418 (6th Cir. 2001) held that defendant Roadway Express, a carrier authorized to transport freight (not household goods authority), was required to pay a successful claimant’s Carmack Amendment claim. The Trepel Court held that in enacting the fee-shifting provision in the statute, Congress did not clearly indicate it was limited to the household goods moving industry.
Congress then enacted the Household Goods Mover Oversight Enforcement and Reform Act of 2005 (the Act).[5] Among other changes to the Federal transportation law, the Act created a new definition in the Federal transportation law of motor carrier – a “motor carrier of household goods.” Significant for the fee-shifting provision in Section 14708, the Act included an uncodified legislative note. The legislative note provided in pertinent part:
The provisions of title 49, United States Code, and this [Act] (including any amendments made by this [Act]), that relate to the transportation of household goods apply only to a household goods motor carrier (as defined in section 13102 of title 49, United States Code).
Because such legislative notes have the same force and effect as statutory law, as of 2005, the fee-shifting statute as to carriers, requires that the shipment relate to the transportation of household goods that are carried by a household goods motor carrier.
Attorney’s Fees In This Case
As noted, attorney’s fees authorized by Federal law are available in Carmack Amendment actions, provided that certain conditions are satisfied in 49 USC 14708.
If 49 USC 14708 applies to the interstate move, and the individual shipper timely submits his or her claim to the household goods motor carrier and later prevails in any court action against the carrier on the Carmack Amendment claim, the individual shipper shall be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees so long as one of the listed three conditions in 49 USC 14708 is met, including as relevant in this case, that the shipper was not advised during the claim settlement process that a dispute settlement program was available to resolve the dispute.
The Mover Failed To Provide Admissible Evidence It Advised Of Existence Of The Dispute Settlement Information At The Relevant Time During The Move
The Individual Shipper was credited in maintaining the mover never informed him of the availability of an alternative dispute resolution process again, after he submitted his claim.
The mover argued that it furnished the required notice offering an alternative dispute settlement program prior to tender of the goods and again during the claim settlement. Because the mover was unable to show, by admissible evidence, that the required dispute settlement information was provided again at the time the Individual Shipper filed his claim, evidence of the required information being provided to the Individual Shipper before his move was insufficient to establish notice to the Individual Shipper during the relevant time period.
The Damaged Article Does Not Need To Be A “Household Good” If Part Of HHG Shipment For Fee-Shifting Statute To Apply
The mover argued that a motorcycle does not fall within the Federal transportation law definition of “household goods” and as such, the fee-shifting provision does not apply as the dispute resolution statute is limited to recovery for household goods. The mover cited car-carrier cases where the individual shippers there had been denied attorney’s fees under the fee-shifting statute after prevailing on their Carmack Amendment claim.
While conceding that a motorcycle is not an article of household goods, the Appeals court rejected the argument. The cited cases did not involve the transportation of a shipment of household goods, and “there was no indication” those carriers possessed household goods motor carrier operating authority. Because the mover was authorized as a motor carrier of household goods, the Individual Shipper hired the mover for an interstate household move, asked the sales representative if the motorcycle could be moved and was advised it could, did not contend the motorcycle was excluded from the $50,000 declared shipment value, or otherwise treated differently than the Individual Shipper’s household goods during the move, the Appeals court held the statute does not require that the damaged item be a household good so long as the statutory requirements of 49 USC 14708 are met, including that the action concerns the transportation of household goods by such carrier.
Takeaways
The measure of damages applying the liability provisions of the Carmack Amendment against the motor carrier of household goods where an individual shipper has selected FVP and declared a sufficient shipment value resulted in a “like kind and quality” award for an article damaged beyond repair representing the replacement cost of a new comparable article.
An individual shipper awarded his or her reasonable attorney’s fees where he or she is required to litigate the Carmack Amendment claim against a household goods motor carrier, prevails in court and the carrier is unable to show that it advised the shipper during the claim settlement process that a dispute settlement program was available to resolve the dispute, among other requirements of the fee-shifting statute.
Dated: Sudbury, MA
June 22, 2025
Andresen & Borovick, LLP
323 Boston Post Road
Sudbury, Massachusetts 01776
www.abmasslaw.com
Tel: (978) 443-6868
The foregoing is designed to provide general information based on a summary of legal principles for clients and friends of the firm. It is not intended to be construed as legal advice, or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. Companies and individuals should consult with legal counsel before taking any action based on these principles to ensure their applicability in a given situation. The information presented here and on our website should not be construed to be legal advice or the formation of a lawyer/client relationship. Copyright © 2025 Andresen & Borovick, LLP. All rights reserved.
[1] Bekins Van Lines, Inc. v. Kahn, 03-24-00088-CV (Tex. App. May 22, 2025).
[2] The mover’s appellate brief includes a picture of the three-wheeled motorcycle. Brief at 13.
[3] In awarding $29,228.99 as the measure of damages under the FVP option, for a “comparable” “like kind and quality” to suffice as a replacement to the damaged motorcycle, the trial court judge deducted certain fees including a warranty and freight charges from the purchase price.
[4] The Carmack Amendment permits household carriers to offer individual shippers two liability options: a released rate option of $.60 per pound per article – substantially lower than depreciated value, offering a lower shipping rate, and full value protection under which the individual shipper declares a total value of the shipment, and in case of loss or damage to any articles, the carrier would generally be required to pay the replacement value of the goods comparable to those lost or damaged, up to the declared value of the shipment in exchange for a higher shipping rate (the base rate, plus valuation charge dependent on value bracket declared). Since 2005, the default liability of the carrier (subject to minimums and deductibles, if any) for an interstate movement of household goods is full value protection unless the shipper waives FVP, declares the released rate of $.60 and, such waiver is in writing.
[5] The Act is a subtitle to Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users.